Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Representative Ellen Tauscher – The New Neocon - A Response to a Responder

One of the people who read “Representative Ellen Tauscher – The New Neocon”, responded to me by saying that the message seemed to be, and I’ll paraphrase, inflexible. The respondent, whom I respect a great deal, said that my message presented a “my way or the highway” point of view. The respondent said that my rant almost seemed to be composed by a “Bushite”.

I didn’t immediately respond as the message prompted some serious introspection. If I’m like a “Bushite”, I want to change that.

Last night, I finally responded.

In case anyone else thinks that my analysis of Tauscher’s “win the peace” letter was too harsh or inflexible, I’ll share my response.

I was really moved when you responded to my outrage at Tauscher’s taking the “finish the job” approach to Iraq. You said that I expressed “it’s my way or the highway”. You said that I was being like a “Bushite”.

I’ve been thinking about those words and you’re absolutely right. When it comes to Iraq, it’s my way or the wrong way.

If we were speaking of Social Security, there may be some room for debate.

If we were talking about the response to Katrina, I would tell you that the reaction is nothing but partisan bullshit, on both sides. No matter who, by protocol, was the first responder responsible to prevent the disaster, when one party saw nothing being done by the other, it should have had the initiative to do something. Blaming the local authorities and the federal government for failing in that case is precisely right. Both sides said they waited for the other side to do something and that makes both sides wrong.

If we were talking about corporate welfare, I could work with that, with the help of CEOs.

But I’m talking about Iraq and you know what? I can defeat anyone who chooses to debate me. Anyone, undeniably. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

We were told by The Regime that, as much as we asked Saddam Hussein to disarm, he wasn’t doing it. As much as Bush wanted to avoid war, he had to send soldiers into harm’s way because Hussein wouldn’t get rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that The Regime knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD. I believe that The Regime orchestrated 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 stirred up hate toward any reference to Islam and as far as stupid Americans were concerned, Iraq was a Muslim nation because Muslims live there. They didn’t want to hear that Iraq was a secular state and that its UN ambassador, Teriq Aziz, is a Christian. Iraq=Middle East=Arab=terrorist. It was an easy segue.

The debate, however, is short and sweet.

We invaded Iraq because they possessed stockpiles of WMD…period!

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush said so himself. Even if there was, that wasn’t the reason we were given. We said we gave Hussein ample time to disarm and he wouldn’t. We invaded Iraq because it refused to give up its WMD.


The Regime talks about the election, the progress toward democracy, the success of drawing up a constitution. We didn’t invade Iraq to help them with that. We invaded Iraq because Hussein had WMD that could be used against his neighbors and even the US…period!

Even Democrats say that it was a mistake to invade Iraq but since we’re there we can’t just up and leave. Why not? We didn’t invade Iraq to protect them against radical Muslims. We invaded Iraq to disarm Iraq, to destroy the WMD that were a danger to the rest of the world. That’s the only reason we were given.

Yes, we invaded Iraq and fucked up the country. Now we want to gamble on how long it will take for Iraq to “stabilize” from our mistake. We need to stay there until it does.

No we don’t! We caused it, but I would gamble that we’ll never be able to “defeat” people who, if they aren’t defending their nation, are defending their part of the world against invaders and occupiers. We didn’t invade Iraq to be the offender against whom Middle Easterners have to defend. We invaded Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction that they refused to get rid of…
period!

In a debate, I will continue to say that we invaded Iraq to destroy the WMD that Hussein didn’t have. When we found he didn’t have them, we should have returned Hussein to power because he didn’t have the materials for which we invaded Iraq. We should have reimbursed him for the destruction and death we caused.

If he tortured his people before the invasion and he began torturing them after we retreated, that’s Hussein’s business. We didn’t invade Iraq to stop Hussein from torturing his people. We invaded Iraq to disarm Hussein…period!

I can say that if we’re going to be in the business of invading countries whose leaders torture its citizens, we’d have a lot of invading to do. Was Hussein the worse? It doesn’t matter because that’s not the reason we invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq because Hussein had WMD and to defend our nation against a possible attack by Iraq using those WMD. He didn’t have them and, when we found that out, we should have withdrawn and reimbursed Iraq, with Hussein as the leader and with interest.

The debate goes like this. We invaded Iraq because Iraq had WMD.

Anyone who says anything that keeps us in Iraq any longer than one more second has veered away from the debate. The only answer that might contain any logic whatsoever is that he did have WMD and we haven’t found them yet. But he had them and he could use them against us, so we needed to invade Iraq and we will find the weapons.

We’ve searched long enough, if we’ve searched at all, and we were wrong.

That is, we as a nation who believed the BS were wrong. The Regime was right. They knew he had no such weapons. They wanted to invade Iraq to control its natural resources and keep them away from such nations as China and India.

There’s some sick religious reason that The Regime wants to control Jesus’ country as well, but that’s a whole different subject.

But, it’s my way or the wrong way.

Iraq didn't possess WMD in the run up to this "war" and, consequently, the reason no longer exists and we should leave. There’s no compromise. There’s no basis for compromise. When it comes to the reason why we invaded Iraq, WMD, what compromise is there?

We need to leave. There’s no other action that we can justify.

I guess when it comes to the continuing deaths of Americans, I’m immovable.

It’s my way or the wrong way. The wrong way will get more Americans killed and that’s what makes that way wrong.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with my way, and Cindy Sheehan’s way and the way of many, many other people, agrees with the wrong way. Any way that keeps us there any longer is the wrong way.

A Bushite is indeed as adamant as I am. Bushites are so adamant about staying in Iraq and getting more Americans killed that they keep coming up with new reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the threat of WMD. Now that’s persistency, very deadly persistency indeed.

I’ve thought long and hard about what you said and finally organized my thoughts and this is the epistle that evolved from that thought process.

Does “I can defeat anyone who chooses to debate me. Anyone, undeniably. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong” sound arrogant? Yes, it sounds arrogant, but I’m no brain surgeon and it doesn’t take one to see the logic of my argument and the complete vacancy in the arguments that keep morphing, including Tauscher’s politalk.

She’s up for reelection and, like all of our professional politicians, she’s trying to “please” everyone. I have no idea what she really believes. I don’t know what most of our professional politicians believe. I don’t think that they give their beliefs much thought.

American politics is a game played by the wealthy and, as long as the spectators of that game continue to take it seriously, like people take WWF seriously, the game will continue to be played.

To friendship,
Michael

“Every government has as much of a duty to avoid war as a ship's captain has to avoid a shipwreck.” – Guy de Maupassant

No comments: